From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castello v. Standard Machine Manuf

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five
Sep 2, 2003
113 S.W.3d 683 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

No. ED 83080

September 2, 2003

Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations.

Kelly Castello, St. Louis, pro se.

Ronald Miller, Jefferson City, MO, for Division of Employment Securty.

Larry Raymond Ruhmann, St. Louis, MO, for Standard Machine Manufacturing Company.



Kelly S. Castello (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) order denying her application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On July 30, 2002, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits because she left work without good cause attributable to her work or employer. Claimant filed a timely appeal with the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the deputy's determination. The Appeals Tribunal mailed this decision to Claimant on October 3, 2002. Over seven months later, on May 1, 2003, Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission denied Claimant's application for review because it was untimely. Claimant appeals to this Court.

In response to Claimant's appeal, the Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division contends that Claimant's untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider her appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.200 gives a claimant thirty (30) days after the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on October 3, 2002. Claimant filed her application for review with the Commission over seven months later, on May 1, 2003. Therefore, Claimant's application for review was untimely.

All statutory references are to RSMo. 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Claimant's failure to file her application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion divested the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. McAtee v. Bio-Medical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App.E.D. 2002). In addition, there is no mechanism under Section 288.200 for a special order to file a late application for review. Id. Without jurisdiction, this Court must grant the Division's motion to dismiss. Claimant's appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

Mooney and Draper, III, JJ., concur


Summaries of

Castello v. Standard Machine Manuf

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five
Sep 2, 2003
113 S.W.3d 683 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

Castello v. Standard Machine Manuf

Case Details

Full title:KELLY S. CASTELLO, Appellant, v. STANDARD MACHINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five

Date published: Sep 2, 2003

Citations

113 S.W.3d 683 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)